HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr0890 and id is 1 raw text is: YOUNG V. HODGES
[158] YOUNG v. HODGES. Nov. 9, 10, Dec. 1, 1852.
Cases in which, the residuary estate of one testator having devolved upon another, it
is proper to join the executors of the first testator in a suit to administer the estate
of the second, and to take the accounts of both estates in one suit.
The circumstances of this case were very special and complicated, and are not
necessary to be stated for the purpose of explaining the rule laid down in the judg-
ment with reference to the cases in which it is proper to administer two estates in the
same suit.
See Powell v. Cockerell, 4 Hare, 557.
Mr. Rolt and Mr. Cairns, for the Plaintiff; and
Sir W. P. Wood, Mr. Baily, Mr. Collins and Mr. Freeling, for the Defendants.
THE VICE-CHANCELLOR [Sir G. J. Turner]. At the hearing of the cause the
frame of the record, as involving the accounts of the estates both of J. Webster, [159]
the father, and J. Webster, the son, in one suit, was much objected to on the part of
the Defendants, the representatives of Forshaw ; but this objection, having been raised
at the hearing of the cause, and not by demurrer for multifariousness, is to be disposed
of according to the discretion of the Court ; and I see nothing in the case which ought
to prevent the Court, in the exercise of its discretion, from dealing with both the
estates in this suit. I think, indeed, that these estates have been so dealt with that
it would have been difficult to maintain the objection of multifariousness had it been
taken by demurrer. Where the residuary estate of one testator devolves upon another
testator the executors of the first testator may, I think, well be joined in a suit for
the administration of the estate of the second testator, in all cases in which there have
been such dealings between the two sets of executors as would prevent the rights of
the parties suing from being fully and fairly worked out, if the suit for the adminis-
tration of the estate of the first testator were brought by the executors of the second;
and this case must, I think, have been held to fall within that rule. I am of opinion,
therefore, that the usual accounts of the estates of both these testators must be taken
in this suit.
The Plaintiffs further insisted that there should also be an account of the estate of
J. Webster the elder received by the Defendant, Hodges, who was the executor of J.
Webster the younger, but did not represent the estate of J. Webster the elder; and
I am of opinion that this account must be directed. It does not indeed fall within
the usual accounts; but, looking to the answer and the evidence, I think that this
Defendant has intermeddled with the estate of J. Webster the elder to such an extent
that the account is clearly due.
[160] KENNERLEY v. KENNERLEY. July 3, 1852.
[S. C. 16 Jur. 649.]
B3equest of the testator's property to his wife to bring up and educate his children,
and when they should come of age to settle on them what she should deem
prudent, reserving to herself a sufficient maintenance; and, at her death, the
property remaining to be equally divided amongst his children; with a gift to
trustees for the children, in case of the marriage of his widow. Held, that the
widow took a life interest in the property, with a power to settle or appoint the
same on or to the children of the testator, but not on or to his grandchildren ; and
that the children took vested interests in the property, at the testator's death,
liable to be divested by such appointment.
The questions in the cause arose on the will of Samuel Kennerley, dated in 1814,
which was in the following words :- I hereby give and leave to my dearly beloved
wife Alicia Kennerley the whole of my estate, personal and real, to bring up and
educate my children, and when they come of age to settle on them what shall be
880
10 EARE, 158,](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0890&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)